The National Court has ruled that systematic bag checks and regular searches of lockers violate the right to privacy
Judgment of the National High Court of 23 July 2026
(SAN No. 138/2026, Case No. 181/2026).
The National High Court examines the legality of two control measures implemented by a clothing retailer, consisting of a daily visual inspection of the handbags and rucksacks of employees on the late shift before they leave the workplace, and periodic, random searches of staff lockers. The dispute arises in the context of a collective labour dispute brought by the UGT and CCOO trade unions, which alleged that both practices infringed workers’ fundamental right to privacy.
With regard to the bag checks, the Chamber notes that the exercise of employers’ powers of surveillance and control, as provided for in Article 20.3 of the Workers’ Statute, is limited by the need to respect fundamental rights. Building on established constitutional doctrine, the judgement applies the so-called proportionality test, which requires proof of a legitimate purpose, the suitability of the measure, its necessity and proportionality in the strict sense.
Although the Court acknowledges that the visual inspection of bags may be potentially appropriate for preventing theft, it considers that the company did not adequately demonstrate the grounds justifying its implementation. In particular, the actual extent of the losses cited was not proven, nor was it shown that these were significantly attributable to thefts committed by employees. The Court also emphasises that there had been only six dismissals linked to fraudulent conduct or theft amongst a workforce of over 4,600 employees, a circumstance insufficient to justify a systematic surveillance measure. Furthermore, the Court considers that the measure also fails to meet the test of necessity, as there were alternatives less intrusive to employees’ privacy, such as the installation of security systems equivalent to those in place in other areas of the premises. The company’s own practices showed that workers on other shifts left the premises without undergoing these checks, which further undermined the justification put forward by the company.
With regard to locker searches, the Chamber specifically examines the requirements set out in Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute (ET), a provision which, by way of exception, regulates searches of employees’ persons, lockers and personal effects. From this perspective, it concludes that the company’s policy could not be regarded as lawful either, as the searches were carried out as preventive, random and periodic checks, unrelated to any specific evidence demonstrating the need to protect the company’s assets or those of other employees.
The ruling emphasises that the powers provided for in Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute do not permit the establishment of permanent surveillance mechanisms aimed at deterring hypothetical conduct, but rather actions justified by objective and specific circumstances. As this necessity was not demonstrated and as both measures infringed upon employees’ privacy, the National High Court declared both the daily bag checks and the random locker searches to be null and void, ordering their immediate cessation.